Author: info@amberhawk.com

I wrote last Friday’s blog before the weekend’s Twittering events and it is quite clear that the injunction protecting the footballer’s privacy is unsustainable. Clearly barring all of the press from mentioning a name simply is a non-starter (especially as the footballer’s name was chanted by fans at yesterday’s Premier League games). However, several facts are being missed in the current reporting furore. First is that the Court granted the footballer an injunction because the newspaper concerned was the beneficiary of an

As far as I can see, the Review of the use of super injunctions by a Committee headed by the two senior judges in the UK is: “no change except at the procedural fringe”. The Review more or less throws down the gauntlet to Parliament and states that it has either to change the law, otherwise the Courts will continue onwards as before. The suggested procedural changes act at the superficial level, shorter periods for super injunctions, more review of their necessity,

Super injunctions just for the rich and powerful? The Courts making it up a privacy law as they go along? Is that the impression you get from the media coverage of the current super injunction case? However, did you know that, in this case, the Court concluded that the question was more about blackmail than free speech? Did you know that the newspaper did not provide any evidence as to why the public interest was served by disclosure? [Note added on

I thought I would put into the public domain my answers to some very important questions surrounding the journalist phone hacking scandal. Of course I am reading the runes to obtain my answers, but after all its Friday – the day when one can speculate irresponsibly. However, please look carefully at what is said about “acceptable use” policies. Q1: Why has the Metropolitan Police upped its inquiry and have 50 officers on the case? I think the Met Police had

Last week the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) posted a damning report into how the proposed Passenger Name Record (PNR) Directive was disproportionate and failed to protect the privacy of passengers arriving in Europe. At more or less the same time the UK Government, with the support of a Committee of the House of Lords, supported the extension of this Directive to include the capture of details of passengers using internal flights within Europe. This proposal is being pushed through

The European Commission has published today a proposal for an “Oyster Card Passenger Name Record (OCPNR) Regulation” to fight serious crime and terrorism before and during the London Olympics. The proposal obliges Transport for London (TfL) to provide EU Member States with data on passengers using London Tube and Bus system whilst at the same time guaranteeing a high level of privacy protection for Olympians and other VIPs. "This proposal for an OCPNR Regulation is an extension of the existing PNR

Like you, I have received my 2011 census form from the Office of National Statistics (ONS). The cover page prominently states, in bold, “Your personal information is protected by law. Census information is kept confidential for 100 years”. Like you, perhaps, I have taken this statement at face value. However, preparing for our Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) course, I came across the PIA for the Census (see references). Under the heading “Keeping census records confidential”, the Census PIA states that